Journals / Atmospheric Pollution Research / 2016 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of plume lateral dispersion coefficients schemes: Effect of averaging time

Pages
134–146
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The present investigation on the effect of short-term averagingtimes on atmospheric transport and diffusion may help to understand some issues related to the use ofdispersion models in the case of flammability, malodor nuisance and toxicity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Dispersion modeling is an important decision tool for estimating the impact of human activities on theenvironment and its populations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This inability arises from theerrors in the lateral and vertical dispersion estimates, which are reliable only to predict 10 min or longeraverage concentrations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The present investigation on the effect of short-term averagingtimes on atmospheric transport and diffusion may help to understand some issues related to the use ofdispersion models in the case of flammability, malodor nuisance and toxicity.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Dispersion modeling is an important decision tool for estimating the impact of human activities on theenvironment and its populations. However, it was proved by researchers that AERMOD and CALPUFF, thecurrent regulatory models, do not account for the effect of averaging time. In consequence, these modelsdo not have the ability to predict short-term time peak concentrations. This inability arises from theerrors in the lateral and vertical dispersion estimates, which are reliable only to predict 10 min or longeraverage concentrations. In this paper, a novel evaluation based on Irwin (1983) was conducted toinvestigate the effect of averaging time on the lateral dispersion and maximum concentration estimates.The Pasquill-Gifford, Hogstr € om, Draxler (embedded in CALPUFF) and AERMOD lateral dispersion €schemes were tested using the Round Hill II experiment, developed to investigate the effects of averagingtime on atmospheric transport and diffusion. The observed lateral dispersion was derived from thelateral concentration profiles along 3 sampling arcs (50, 100 and 200 m), measured on 3 differentaveraging times (0.5; 3 and 10 min). The observed lateral dispersion was compared to those estimates.The results of the comparison show that AERMOD and Draxler correlate better with measured data thanthe PG and Hogstr € om methods. However, their estimates are biased and the magnitude of systematic €errors tends to grow as the averaging time decreases. Moreover, AERMOD and Draxler, with Peak-toMean (P-M) adjustment, tend to overestimate the lateral dispersion farther from the source and underestimate at downwind distances less than 200 m. The analysis also highlights some concerns on theP-M ratio application due its subjectivity. The present investigation on the effect of short-term averagingtimes on atmospheric transport and diffusion may help to understand some issues related to the use ofdispersion models in the case of flammability, malodor nuisance and toxicity.

🔖

Cite This Article

HOİNASKİ, L., FRANCO, D., LİSBOA, H. D. M. (2016). Comparison of plume lateral dispersion coefficients schemes: Effect of averaging time. Atmospheric Pollution Research, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1, 134–146. https://ajindex.com/articles/351577

References (8)

  1. Beaman, A.L., 1988. A novel approach to estimating the odour concentration distribution in the community. Atmos. Environ 22, 561e567. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0004-6981(88)90200-4.
  2. Chang, J.C., Hanna, S.R., 2004. Air quality model performance evaluation. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 87, 167e196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00703-003-0070-7.
  3. Cimorelli, A.J., Perry, S.G., Venkatram, A., Weil, J.C., Paine, R.J., Wilson, R.B., Lee, R.F., Peters, W.D., Brode, R.W., 2005. AERMOD: a dispersion Model for industrial source applications. Part I: general model formulation and boundary layer characterization. J. Appl. Meteorol 44, 682e693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/ JAM2227.1. Cramer, H.E., Record, F.A., 1957. Field studies of atmospheric diffusion and the structure of turbulence. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. Q 18, 126e131. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/00968205709343479. De Melo Lisboa, H., Guillot, J.M., Fanlo, J.L., Le Cloirec, P., 2006. Dispersion of odorous gases in the atmosphere e part I: modeling approaches to the phenomenon. Sci. Total Environ 361, 220e228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2005.05.010. Dourado, H., Santos, J., Reis Junior, N., Melo, A.M.V., 2012. The effects of atmospheric turbulence on peak-to-mean concentration ratio and its consequence on the odour impact assessment using dispersion models. Chem. Eng. Trans. 163e168. Dourado, H., Santos, J.M., Reis, N.C., Mavroidis, I., 2014. Development of a fluctuating plume model for odour dispersion around buildings. Atmos. Environ 89, 148e157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.053.
  4. Draxler, R.R., 1976. Determination of atmospheric diffusion parameters. Atmos. Environ 10, 99e105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(76)90226-2.
  5. Franzese, P., 2003. Lagrangian stochastic modeling of a fluctuating plume in the convective boundary layer. Atmos. Environ 37, 1691e1701. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S1352-2310(03)00003-7.
  6. Gifford Jr., F., 1959. Statistical properties of A fluctuating plume dispersion model. In: Advances in Geophysics. Elsevier, pp. 117e137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0065-2687(08) 60099-0.
  7. Guo, H., 2006. Livestock odour dispersion modeling: a review. In: CSBE/SCGAB 2006
  8. Annual Conference. Guo, H., Jacobson, L.D., Schmidt, D.R., Nicolai, R.E., Janni, K.A., 2004. Comparison of five models for setback distance determination from livestock sites. Can. Byosystems Engineering 46, 17e25. Hanna, S.R., 1967. Concentration fluctuations in a smoke plume. Atmos. Environ 18, 1091e1106. http://dx.doi.org/10.